Religion and State Formation in Postrevolutionary Mexico
Page1(22 of 351)

f INTRODUCTION The overthrow of dictator Porﬁrio Díaz in 1911 began a decade of bloody strife and social upheaval known as the Mexican Revolution. By 1920, the triumph of a faction of warlords and civilian politicos ended the revolution’s armed phase.∞ As the Partido Revolucionario Institucional (pri, Party of the Institutionalized Revolution), it held power until the year 2000. While al- most every other Latin American nation experienced long periods of mili- tary rule or divisive social conflict during the Cold War, the pri ruled with- out recourse to systematic repression. If not strictly democratic, the pri regime was stable, inclusive, and favored by the United States. Over the past two decades, scholars seeking to explain the pri’s longevity and apparent popular support have moved away from Marxist-inspired so- cioeconomic determinism. Instead, they have closely examined the ruling party’s negotiations with diverse popular groups. Two complementary con- cepts drawn from Antonio Gramsci’s political theory, ‘‘hegemony’’ and ‘‘civil society,’’ have become increasingly prominent in postrevolutionary historiography. The former term posits that successful state formation re- quires both coercion and consent. Only negotiation and compromise with key social sectors creates hegemony. The concept of hegemony encouraged scholars to look beyond narrow institutional politics to the broader category of political culture. Consequently, Mexico’s civil society—politically active groups in society that enabled the state to rule—received much closer atten- tion.≤ By the end of the 1990s, a generation of scholars, especially those identiﬁed with the New Cultural History of Mexico, had opened up promis- ing new vistas on the process of postrevolutionary state formation.≥ The academic gaze shifted to the participation of subaltern groups in politics,